DocketNumber： 04-14-00343-CV
Filed Date： 1/12/2015
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 9/28/2016
ACCEPTED 04-14-00343-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS ONE SHELL PLAZA ABU DHABI HOUSTON 1/12/2015 12:07:46 PM 910 LOUISIANA AUSTIN LONDON KEITH HOTTLE HOUSTON, TEXAS BEIJING MOSCOW CLERK 77002-4995 BRUSSELS NEW YORK DALLAS PALO ALTO TEL +1 713.229.1234 DUBAI RIO DE JANEIRO FAX +1 713.229.1522 HONG KONG RIYADH BakerBotts.com WASHINGTON FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS January 12, 2015 SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 01/12/2015 12:07:46 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Paul R. Elliott 077971.0126 Clerk 713.229.1226 FAX 713.229.2726 paul.elliott@bakerbotts.com By Electronic Filing Mr. Keith E. Hottle, Clerk Fourth Court of Appeals Cadena-Reeves Justice Center 300 Dolorosa, Suite 3200 San Antonio, Texas 78205-3037 Re: Case No. 04-14-00343-CV, EXLP Leasing LLC and EES Leasing LLC v. Webb County Appraisal District and United Independent School District Dear Mr. Hottle: The United Independent School District filed a notice of additional authority on January 8, 2015. This letter, which I respectfully request that you circulate to Justices Angelini, Barnard, and Martinez, provides context for that authority. The purportedly relevant new authority—the Twelfth Court of Appeals’ opinion in No. 12-13-00393-CV, Valerus Compression Services v. Gregg County Appraisal District—is irrelevant to the present appeal. The School District’s own appellee’s brief (at p. 5) correctly stated that this “case does not involve the merits of Exterran’s protest under Tax Code §23.1241 . . . . The issue in this case is whether Exterran, pursuant to Tax Code § 42.08 (b), has forfeited their right to proceed to a final determination of their appeal . . . .” For that reason, the construction in Valerus of Section 23.1241 can play no role in the jurisdictional dispute currently pending before this Court, and the School District’s submission of that case as relevant authority is misplaced. If anything, it further demonstrates the School District’s and the trial court’s common error of misapprehending the crucial distinction between jurisdiction and merits, and thus provides yet another reason for this Court to reverse and remand the judgment below, so that the issue of Section 23.1241’s proper construction can be finally addressed on the merits. Sincerely, Paul R. Elliott Active 17677751.2 Mr. Keith E. Hottle -2- January 12, 2015 cc: A. Dylan Wood Alberto Alarcon Paul Saenz Benjamin A. Geslison Renn Nielson Active 17677751.2